HISTORY AND FICTION IN

BRAVEHEART

Britanska civilizacija I kultura

Luka Aleksić
• 1995 historical war drama movie
• Mel Gibson
• Inspired by The Actes and Deidis of the Illustre and
Vallyeant Campioun Schir William Wallace
(Blind Harry)
• Won multiple Oscars and awards
• First war of Scottish Independence (1296-1326)
• Sir Wiliam Walace vs. King Edward I
 CRITICS

• Positive reviews – performance of its cast, production values,

battle sequences, epic music, sweeping action, drama and
romance

• Negative reviews – “Historical” movie that is based on a

medieval poem instead reliable source; historical inaccuracy
and anachronisms
 Review from Dr Louise Yeoman,
historian and broadcaster

“Braveheart is a box office hit, but it's not history! Big Hollywood films usually
go for lots of action and a bit of love interest. If they don't find what they want
in the history, they just make it up. 'Braveheart' used some stories from a
medieval poet called Blind Harry, who wrote about William Wallace, but Harry
was more concerned about annoying the English and making out that Wallace
was the greatest hero who ever lived, than with checking the facts. The good
thing is that the film excited people all over the world…the bad thing is that it
tells them a lot of things about William Wallace that are just legends.”
HISTORICAL GAPS
 The “Braveheart”
 Jus primae noctis
 Portrayal of Wiliam Walace
 Portrayal of Isabella of France
 Portrayal of Robert the Bruce
 Portrayal of King Edward I Longshanks
 Miscellaneous
 THE “BRAVEHEART”
 Even the very first film’s title name doesn’t pass untouched.
It’s historically incorrect to address Sir Wiliam as “Brave
Heart” due to the fact this is the nickname Sir James gave to
his deceased friend Robert the Bruce.
 Bruce’s right hand man Sir James Douglas allegedly coined
the name during a battle with Saracens on his crusade to the
holy land. Carrying the heart of his friend, Sir James is
claimed to have thrown the organ into battle and shouted
“Lead on Braveheart, as thou dost!”
 JUS PRIMAE NOCTIS
 In the beginning of the movie, King Edward is seen invoking
Primae Noctis as part of retribution measures that haven been
undertaken against unruly Scotts
 The first night or Primae Noctis is apparently considered a
historical urban myth by most historians
Upon its entry into force of the law, English nobles, lords of
medieval estates, would get legal right to sleep with serfs’
maiden daughters on their wedding nights
 There’s plenty of writings that refer to it, but very little
scholarly evidence that it was ever actually used by any
rulers anywhere
 WILIAM WALACE
 Sir Wiliam Walace was a no pleb by origin as its depicted
in the film, but a descendant from aristocratic gentry,
usually accompanied with his own esquire. He was already
a knight, by the time of the battle of Stirling bridge, as
most historians agree – he wasn’t knighted afterwards like
the film suggests
 His wife name was Marian and not Murron, though Gibson
changed the name because he wanted to avoid audience
confusing her with Maid Marian from Robin Hood
 Wallace was seen carrying a claymore, two-handed sword;
a sword and shield would be a more historically accurate
.
setup as claymores came into common use just in 16 th
century
Wiliam Walace statue, near
Bemersyde house, Scotland
 ISABELLA OF FRANCE
 We can see Isabella of France having an affair with
Wiliam Walace after battle of Falkirk. At the very end
of the film, Isabella informs King Edward I, who was
on a deathbed, that she is pregnant, implying that her
son Edward III, was a product of the affair
 By the time battle of Falkirk commenced, Isabella was
only 3 years old. She was living in France and wasn’t
married to Edward II until he was already crowned. As
for her menacing suggestion, to a dying Longshank,
that she will displace and destroy Edward II is based in
fact; however it was only 20 years after Wallace’s
death that Isabella, her son Edward III and lover Roger
Mortimer would invade England to depose and later
murder Edward II
 ROBERT THE BRUCE
 The actual “Braveheart”
 It’s true Robert the Bruce changed sides between
Scottish loyalists and English crown, but there is no
historical evidence he fought on the enemy’s side during
battle of Falkirk, or that he struck his own countrymen a
treacherous blow by defecting to the enemy side, as it’s
shown in the movie
 Neither Bruce nor his father had anything to do with
betrayal of Wallace and his subsequent execution – in
fact Bruce is considered a national hero in Scotland and
not a villain as movie makes him out to be
 KING EDWARD I
 Although King Edward was a ruthless and cruel leader,
the filmmakers clearly exaggerated his negative aspects
for the purpose of the effect
 Sources inform us about his interest for poetry and harp
music; he was a loving and gentle husband, a religious
man that endorsed charity, unlike in film’s scene where
he’s seen ridiculing cynically at Isabella for distributing
gold to the poor, which was meant to bribe Wallace
which Scot diligently refused
 At the end of the film, Edward I is shown dying in his
deathbed simultaneously with Wallace’s execution. In
reality he died some 2 years afterwards and it happened
during another crusade against troublemaking Scots, not
in his homebed
 MISCELLANEOUS
Click icon to add picture
 Medieval Scottish warriors didn’t have faces caked in blue paint as it’s shown in
the movie; such customs had existed but long time before the period that movie
narrated; same applies for tartan kilts, a fashion that was only invented hundreds of
years later
 Battle of Stirling bridge – bridge is missing, battle is set in the open field, there is
no castle, no cunning manoeuvre; lack of the things that would make the battle
interesting or prove Wallace’s intelligence as a commander
 Wiliam Wallace did raid parts of northern England, any Scottish commanders worth
their salt did. What Wallace never did, contrary to the movie, was to besiege and
capture York, the most important city in this area, famous for its unpenetrable walls
 The Irish conscripts at battle of Falkirk are unhistorical as well; there weren’t any
Irishmen whatsoever, though it’s correct that many of the English army were Welsh